Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
I wonder if we can't just link directly to these libraries nowadays, since
we've pretty explicitly dropped Windows 2000 support.
Original comment by ted.mielczarek
on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:37
Linking directly would probably have three benefits: (1) remove the direct path
manipulation problems; (2) ensure an expected code base is being used (lots of
down-level versions of ImageHlp.dll, DbgHelp.dll, etc are floating around in
the %SYSTEM32% directory); and (3) no need to redistribute a DLL (many FOSS
folks find it objectionable).
If any statically linked libraries have additional dependencies, then they
might suffer path manipulations too.
Perhaps it would be best to (1) use static linking; and (2) call
SetDllDirectory for any lazy loads via LoadLibrary. We really need a manifest
setting for SetDllDirectory so that we can harden the process early, but its a
gap in the platform.
Also see "Dynamic-Link Library Security,"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff919712(v=vs.85).aspx.
Original comment by noloa...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2012 at 8:08
I didn't mean statically link, I'm pretty sure that's not an option for
DbgHelp. I just meant dynamically link directly to the library instead of using
LoadLibrary.
Original comment by ted.mielczarek
on 28 Sep 2012 at 12:24
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
noloa...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2012 at 6:12